Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HDFS, mail # dev - VOTE: HDFS-347 merge


+
Colin McCabe 2013-02-17, 21:48
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-18, 02:35
+
Stack 2013-02-18, 01:49
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-18, 22:03
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 00:11
+
Patrick Angeles 2013-02-20, 18:08
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-20, 19:56
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-20, 23:01
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 23:06
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 23:06
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-20, 23:08
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 23:13
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-20, 23:31
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 23:40
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-21, 00:04
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-21, 00:12
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-21, 00:28
+
Chris Douglas 2013-02-21, 00:29
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-02-21, 01:12
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-21, 15:40
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-21, 01:32
+
Chris Douglas 2013-02-21, 21:24
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-21, 22:15
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-22, 21:55
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-23, 02:32
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-02-23, 02:40
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-24, 00:23
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-25, 18:24
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-25, 20:50
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-25, 21:16
+
Chris Douglas 2013-02-25, 21:50
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-26, 00:09
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-26, 00:39
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-26, 17:33
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-26, 19:24
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-26, 19:35
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-26, 21:51
+
Chris Douglas 2013-02-27, 00:52
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-27, 01:09
+
Colin McCabe 2013-03-05, 20:24
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-03-05, 21:09
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-03-05, 23:08
+
sanjay Radia 2013-02-27, 19:45
Copy link to this message
-
Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge
Eli Collins 2013-02-27, 20:06
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:45 AM, sanjay Radia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
>> it doesn't seem right to hold up 347 up for Windows support given that
>> Windows support has not been merged to trunk yet, is not in any Apache
>> release, etc. Personally I don't like establishing the precedent here
>> that we can hold up a merge due to requirements from an unmerged
>> branch.
>
> It is not being held back of for the windows port. It is being held back because 2246 should not be removed as part of 347; a separate jira should had been filed to remove it.

This isn't about just having a separate jira though right?  We could
easily pull the change out to two jiras (one removes 2246 and then
next adds 347), they weren't separated because the goal for 347 was to
be a re-write of the same feature (direct reads).  You commented on
2246 that it is a temporary workaround for 347, do you no longer feel
that way?  Your reply to ATM made it seem like this was something that
we'd be maintaining for a while (vs being a stopgap until 347 adds
Windows support).
+
Colin McCabe 2013-02-27, 23:28
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-27, 23:42
+
Chris Douglas 2013-02-27, 23:29
+
Eli Collins 2013-02-25, 22:01
+
Colin McCabe 2013-02-25, 18:31
+
Colin McCabe 2013-02-22, 19:13
+
sanjay Radia 2013-02-27, 01:36
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-21, 00:47
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 20:16
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-20, 22:49
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 23:01
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-02-20, 23:19
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-02-20, 21:48
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-20, 22:27
+
Bikas Saha 2013-02-26, 21:47
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-02-26, 22:07
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-01, 23:32